report_to_parent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds durable append to the parent's inbox, active delivery of the pointer, fallback alert to the nearest reachable ancestor with fallback provenance, and refusal for collab_path workers. These behavioral details go well beyond the schema and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense paragraph, but every sentence carries distinct information—purpose, parent selection, persistence, fallback, root edge case, and collab_path exclusion. It is front-loaded with the action and then details constraints in a logical order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter fully documented in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the behavioral details needed to call the tool correctly, including fallback behavior and error cases. No critical operational information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces that the blocker is a short pointer and adds delivery semantics ('durably appended', 'actively delivered'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's own description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Raise a short blocker to this managed agent's registry parent.' It also clarifies scope by saying cmuxlayer chooses the parent and callers cannot address arbitrary agents, which distinguishes it from arbitrary messaging siblings like send_to.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit context: root agents receive an error, and workers with collab_path must append there to reach their parent lead because 'this tool refuses that upward route.' It clearly implies this is for parent-directed blockers, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as send_to, so some routing inference remains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.